I think that would be very difficult without a much better understanding of our bodies, so it becomes a chicken/egg problem. Aging isn't really just one thing,

I think that would be very difficult without a much better understanding of our bodies, so it becomes a chicken/egg problem. Aging isn't really just one thing, it is a constellation of factors that often comingle to make the process even worse. I frequently see Telomere "reset" referenced as the big thing that would win or achieved the most gains in the war on aging, but that seems like it would only be an incremental gain. Here's a good overview on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712935/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712935/ Also consider that long life may not produce the advancements you might hope for. There's a saying: "Science progresses one funeral at a time." It's a reference to the fact that individuals typically hold fast to their ideas-- scientists included. Certainly we may react to & integrate new knowledge, but at some fundamental level we are hindered by the cognitive foundations of knowledge laid down when we're younger that are not automatically escaped on new information. That's not even accounting for pride & ego causing people to cling even more fiercely to their own ideas. You might think that on ongoing infusion of new talent would prevent this, but massively extended age would also entrench the older generations firmly into the power structures of the scientific community, creating at least a partial gerontocracy. Heck we have a bit of that now: Plenty of PhD candidates get stuck "playing the game" and not bucking the status quo too much, only guided down paths their advisors find acceptable. If you have something that significantly contradicts the current consensus, then without a very good & open minded advisor willing to go to bat for you, you might as well shelve it, do something mundane & acceptable for your dissertation, and dust off that other idea when you're done. This situation would not improve with the further ossification of power structures. If we got there though-- massively extended lifespans, the gerontocracy aspect of things in society in general would be also be a difficult sociological issue. With a 300 year lifespan, by the time you got to 200 you would probably consider anyone under the age of 50 as little more than children. The issue of wealth inequality would be incredible as generational wealth accumulated by anyone remotely careful with their finances would, by late-middle age, dwarf the resources of anyone starting out. There could be some interesting & positive aspects to all of that though too. Imagine have half a century to explore intellectually or otherwise before you were expect to settle into a path in life. And if we found societal of medical methods to help people break out of psychological & intellectual inertia then a person might expect to have multiple very different careers in their lifetime. Anyway, all of that would be a very long ways off. At my age I might still hope that leaps in medical advances could give me an extra 10 years of productive healthy life, but probably not much more. And I've also gone a long ways off the original topic, so I'll end it here.